39Q TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



Since this legislation interferes with the established uses and cus- 

 toms of the fishermen, the burden is upon those who advocate it to 

 prove that the benefit will outweigh the inconvenience. Ever since the 

 influential voice of Huxley was lifted in its defense, the policy of unre- 

 stricted capture of the migratory species has continued to grow, this 

 view being strongly supported by many eminent authorities of the 

 present day. 



With respect to the bottom fishes, cod, haddock, flatfish, etc., our 

 present knowledge of the remedial effects of fishery restriction is so 

 slight as scarcely to furnish a satisfactory basis even for national waters, 

 much less for complicated international restrictions. 



For the purpose of determining the best regulations for preserving 

 the fishery resources with the maximum extent of their utilization, it is 

 not easy to exaggerate the importance of systematic research in marine 

 biology and the effect of fishing operations. Excellent work of this 

 nature has been done and is yet in progress in many countries where 

 the fisheries are of great extent. 



International restrictions have been of two general classes, the one 

 for preserving the resources and the other for the maintenance of good 

 order among the fishermen and for preventing the destruction of prop- 

 erty. To the former class belong the Bering Sea fur seal regulations, 

 and in some particulars the Anglo-French regulations of 1843; while 

 all the remaining conventions and regulations, the North Sea Conven- 

 tions of 1882 and 1891, the Anglo-Denmark Convention of 1901 and 

 the Sub-marine Cable Convention of 1884 are of the second class. A 

 review of the history of these regulations shows that the arrangement 

 of joint action is a tedious and difficult matter and ratification of the 

 convention is always uncertain. Indeed, except so far as concerns the 

 police of the fisheries, it does not appear that great practical benefit has 

 resulted from the regulations already enacted for the fisheries in the 

 international waters. 



For the preservation of the coastal fisheries by means of municipal 

 regulations, as well as for the more important matters of national 

 defense and safety, the opinion is growing that the three-mile limit of 

 the territorial waters is too narrow and that it should be extended con- 

 siderably beyond the present distance. 



This limit had its origin in the range of cannon, which determined 

 the distance over which a nation was able to exercise jurisdiction from 

 the shore. Since the efficiency of cannon has greatly increased, and is 

 now considerably more than three miles, it is urged that the width of 

 the maritime belt should increase correspondingly. In recent years 

 most of the writers on international law have expressed views favorable 

 to this increase. 



The extension of the marginal belt was discussed by the Institut 



